Title: Zeitschrift fur Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie

Title: Zeitschrift fur Evaluation

ISO Abbreviated Title:

JCR Abbreviated Title:

ISSN:

Journal Country/Territory:

Language:

Publisher:

Publisher Address:

Subject Categories:

: Impact Factor

? Bornmann, L., Bowman, B.F., Bauer, J., Marx, W., Schier, H. and Palzenberger, M. (2012), Standards for applying bibliometrics to the evaluation of research institutes in the natural sciences. Zeitschrift fur Evaluation, 11 (2), 233-260.

Full Text: 2012\Zei Eva11, 233-1.pdf

Abstract: Even though bibliometrics has been a well-defined research area within scientometrics for many years, uniformity in the conduct of bibliometric analyses has not yet been achieved. The numerous dos and don’ts that exist in the field represent the implicit knowledge of experienced users, rather than a clearly defined set of rules and operating procedures. Our chapter seeks to establish standards for applying bibliometrics to the evaluation of research institutes in a number of areas in the natural sciences. These standards refer to the selection of the underlying data from the reference databases, the statistical analysis of the data and the presentation of results. We draw upon anonymized data from six research institutes active in similar research areas to illustrate the applicability of our proposed standards.

Keywords: Analyses, Analysis, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Analyses, Bibliometrics, Citation Distributions, Citations, Data, Databases, Evaluation, Field, Google Scholar, Impact Factor, Indicators, Information-Science, Knowledge, Natural, Policy, Presentation, Procedures, Publication Output, Quality, Reference, Research, Research Productivity, Sciences, Scientometrics, Selection, Self-Citation, Standards, Statistical Analysis, Universality

? Krampen, G. (2013), Clarifying the status of scientometric methods in the evaluation of sciences in a psychological view. Zeitschrift fur Evaluation, 12 (1), 79-102.

Full Text: 2013\Zei Eva12, 79.pdf

Abstract: A clarification of the possible and the impossible contributions of scientometric methods in the evaluation of sciences and scientists is presented. Argumentation is developed that refers to (1) the origins of scientometrics in psychometrics, (2) an analogy to scientific developments in creativity research, and (3) a classification of scientometry in a holistic model of science evaluation and science research. Scientometry is not a theory or heuristic, but a methodologically defined research domain. As in psychometrics, in scientometric evaluations attempts are made to operationalize hypothetical constructs quantitatively with the help of empirical indicator variables. The tension between qualitative analyses of highest cultural inventions and quantitative analyses of divergent thinking is, in evaluation research, reflected in the tensions between qualitative peer review strategies and quantitative scientometry. Both strategies of research and evaluation are integrated in a Three-Stage-Model of Creativity and Scientific Achievement. This is demonstrated in a Filter-Model for the Evaluation of Science and Scientists and its classification into science research.

Keywords: Analogy, Analyses, Classification, Creativity, Cultural, Evaluation, Holistic, Indicator, Inventions, Methods, Model, Peer Review, Peer-Review, Psychological, Publication, Qualitative, Research, Review, Science, Science Evaluation, Science Research, Sciences, Scientific Achievement, Scientists, Scientometric, Scientometrics, Scientometry, Theory

? Bornmann, L. and Marx, W. (2013), Proposals of standards for the application of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. Zeitschrift fur Evaluation, 12 (1), 103-127.

Full Text: 2013\Zei Eva12, 103-1.pdf

Abstract: Although scientometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way scientometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to propose standards for the use of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. This study includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers. The standards relate to the selection of data on which an evaluation is based, the analysis of the data and the presentation of the results. To present our standards, we use here the anonymised data for three selected researchers who work in similar areas of research but are of different ages and enjoy different levels of academic success.

Keywords: Academic Success, Analyses, Analysis, Application, Citation Analysis, Citations, Data, Evaluation, Field, Google Scholar, h-Index, Impact Factor, Indicators, Information-Science, Natural, Percentiles, Presentation, Productivity, Publication, Publications, Quality, Recommendations, Research, Research Performance, Researchers, Sciences, Scientometric, Scientometrics, Selection, Standards, Work

? Dessauer, B., Emrich, E., Klein, M. and Pierdzioch, C. (2014), On the evaluation of publication output in sports science. Zeitschrift fur Evaluation, 13 (1), 55-83.

Full Text: 2014\Zei Eva13, 55.pdf

Abstract: Research rankings partly use bibliometric data. Indicators used in this context often are subject to criticism. This research examines problems and consequences of evaluating publication output in sports science. To this end, we characterize the market for scientific publications and we sketch the historical development of the so-called CHE ranking as applied to sports science. We then empirically analyse the effects of marginal changes in the weighting scheme for different types of publications on the ranking outcome. We also look at potential economies of scale, the effect of the publication type on the position of a researcher in the ranking, the correlation between the publication type and the age of a researcher, as well as the correlation between age and publication output.

Keywords: Age, Bibliometric, Bibliometric Data, Bibliometrics, Changes, Che Ranking, Context, Correlation, Data, Development, Economics, Effects, Evaluation, Indicators, Market, Outcome, Potential, Productivity, Publication, Publication Output, Publications, Ranking, Rankings, Recognition, Research, Scale, Science, Scientific Publications, Size, Sports Science, Sports Sciences, Universities, Weighting